Bitcoin has the technical capability to have a provably fair stakeholder voting on its very block chain itself. I can sign my vote with the private key to my X% of bitcoins and publish the vote with the signature. If everyone did it then we could come to a consensus with decentralized and provably fair means. I wonder why hasn't this been put up very much. Who gives a shit what miners and companies think. It's the number of bitcoins that you have which should count as a vote. If a miner wants to vote then they should use their coins to vote. If a company X wants to vote for Bitcoin XT then they should buy some bitcoins to make their vote count.
Has this system actually been implemented into Bitcoin yet? I think that would be a great way to vote, except instead of having more weight for more coins, everyone should have only one vote and that they all be equally weighted (not sure how this would be implemented though). This could ensure consensus. The vote is quite straight forward: You just dump the coins on the chain that you don't support, and send the coin value on that chain to dust  There won't be two chains when voting occurs, it happens after the fork. The voting happens before the fork to determine whether to fork or not. Thus, this is not a valid way to vote since the fork will only happen after consensus is reached. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin has the technical capability to have a provably fair stakeholder voting on its very block chain itself. I can sign my vote with the private key to my X% of bitcoins and publish the vote with the signature. If everyone did it then we could come to a consensus with decentralized and provably fair means. I wonder why hasn't this been put up very much. Who gives a shit what miners and companies think. It's the number of bitcoins that you have which should count as a vote. If a miner wants to vote then they should use their coins to vote. If a company X wants to vote for Bitcoin XT then they should buy some bitcoins to make their vote count.
Has this system actually been implemented into Bitcoin yet? I think that would be a great way to vote, except instead of having more weight for more coins, everyone should have only one vote and that they all be equally weighted (not sure how this would be implemented though). This could ensure consensus. |
|
|
|
I have two questions here...
i. Is it possible to know what % of nodes are running XT before the fork ?
Yes. Look on getaddr.bitnodes.io and you can see how many nodes are running XT. I checked getaddr.bitnodes.io. I is saying to report only nodes running bitcoin core. I also wonder how does someone identify XT as long as it is just a fork of bitcoin core without any extra patch. May be with some checksum it is possible... Actually, it reports all full nodes on the network, but it uses Bitcoin Core as an example of a full node. If you click on the number of nodes, it is a link that takes you to a page where you can search for nodes. Bitcoin XT nodes are identified by the version string /Bitcoin XT:0.10.0/. As of now, there are 16 nodes running Bitcoin XT. |
|
|
|
If the hard fork happens only past 90% of nodes in one side as it should, then what you say it's not a problem. The real fork only happens past 90%, yes or no? thats what I read once here.
That is true. Once >90% of the last 1000 blocks mined that have been accepted by the network and are of the new version yet still conform to the old rules will the hard fork happen. Anything before that will just be two clients on the same network, mining valid blocks for everyone. |
|
|
|
This could be catastrophic for bitcoin. Do you or any of the others who've posted similar messages have any idea what Bitcoin-Xt is? Do you realize it's just another version of the Bitcoin core code? Do you realize that it is already running, and processing transactions alongside Bitcoin Core? Some people, including me, realize this. In fact, Bitcoin-XT doesn't have any modification for the large blocks yet. The large blocks are still in discussion and nothing has been published yet implementing them in a client. |
|
|
|
That thing about the fork not happening until 90 % of nodes are running XT, that is going to change too.
These guys on a power trip have no intentions of waiting for 90 % of the nodes.
Get ready because if this powergrab is allowed to go unchalleged next thing is the 21 million BTC limit along with changing the target time.
They will definitely wait for the 90% before the fork happens because if they didn't it would completely screw up both the original and the new. This would devalue Bitcoin, and everyone would lose confidence in Gavin if he caused the fork to occur so that there actually are two separate coins that essentially doubles any amount of Bitcoin people have right now. He would loose his power and his power grab would fail if he screws up the way that it forks. |
|
|
|
EVERYBODY PLEASE STOP WITH THE FUD!!!!!. So it turns out:
-Gavin was planning his XT altcoin for one year plus and this was all planned for a long time.
The fork IS NOT an altcoin. It is a fork that will happen when >95% of the last 1000 blocks mined conform to the new version rules. -Gavin is the only dev who supports this proposal
-Gavin caused attrition not only for the devteam but for all of the community
-He caused a lot of important people in the space to be upset and even some devs threaten to leave
possibly true. -Gavin caused a decline in the price of Bitcoin which could possibly turn into panic selling (we don't know yet)
Stop spreading FUD and rumors if you don't know yet. -Gavin caused a serious loss in investors confidence and thus harmed Bitcoin greatly
-He sends blackmail letters to the Bitcoin community "do how i say or else ..."
-He doesn't care for decentralisation
-He lies about many things
-He tried a power grab and sides with people who support blacklisting of coins
We don't know yet if these are true. Prove it. Find specific quotes of him publicly saying things that blackmail, lie, and show that he doesn't care for decentralization. -He threatens to risk network consensus and thus the value of a lot of peoples' investement
-He has no idea what consensus is or disrespects it willfully
Not true. If you read above about how the blockchain will be forked, he is respecting consensus because the vast majority of the miners and thus nodes will need to upgrade. -A majority of the community thinks he is a CIA mole (he lost his marbles)
-He caused massive unease for everyone for prolonged time
Both possible, but first is rumor and FUD, no proof. I think it's time to think about if he is really an asset for Bitcoin or more of a burden right now. I have a feeling Bitcoin could rebound +10% if he would resign and thus end this discussion and bring back some investors confidence again. What do you think?
I think you are wrong. |
|
|
|
I am really confused with all of this, I just hope that it doesn't happen anytime soon because a lot of people need to understand about its pros and cons and what exactly they need to do prepare for the fork, I was reading the discussion here True or False: If not enough people join 20MGCoin, we fork into Bitcoin and 20MGCoin [I'd then want Bitcoin] and as far as I understand from it, if I have 2 bitcoins in my wallet, after the fork I will have 2 bitcoins on each blockchain?? but only one of it might have any value and the other will sink to the bottom of the ocean? But that is only if it is an even split, I don't think it'd be that even. And does this mean that we would need new clients for the new blockchain? In any case, you will need to run the "A" version of the software to deposit "A" coin or use the "A" coins that you withdrew, and the "B" version for the "B" coins. What about people who are not aware of this and don't use Bitcoin Core? Sorry if it is a dumb question, I am just trying to understand it's affects. Be gentle!  That is not true. In order for the fork to happen a super-majority (meaning >95%) of the last 1000 blocks mined must abide by the new version rules and the old version rules. That means that those blocks have a new version number, but are still smaller than 1 MB. Only after the super-majority of the blocks is achieved will the blockchain hard fork with the creation of a block that is greater than 1 MB. The vast majority of the network will accept the new fork, the remaining minority will be left on a stale, insecure blockchain which pretty much no one will accept or use. |
|
|
|
Can't be sure about malicious miners and hashpower that lies dormant and would be switched on to core in case of the fork. I'm fairly sure core will survive in any case even against a supermajority simply because it would still be supported by at the very least 20% to 30% of the community according to the polls.
If 20% - 30% of the community (assuming miners are distributed evenly), then super-majority won't be achieved and the fork won't happen. If say those 20% -30% aren't miners, then they are screwed, as their blockchain would become stale, insecure, and unused by everyone else. Even if a few miners stayed, they wouldn't have the hash rate to make that blockchain usable at its current difficulty which would stay there until the next difficulty retarget. |
|
|
|
-Certain people have announced to only pretend to switch to XT and switch back to core after the fork so even if you see a mayority in the network it doesn't mean it's real. There is some rest of risk that can not be avoided.
Who announced this? Either way, the fork does not happen if there are more XT nodes than Core nodes, rather it happens when a large percentage of the last 1000 or greater blocks in the longest blockchain is of the new version number. And switching back to core would be less beneficial to them since that blockchain is no longer the one used by the super-majority. -large blocks do also mean less fees because it lowers the minimum fee one needs to pay to expect fast confirms. This translates to more junk on the chain and more microstransactions and thus a bloat of the blockchain, but this has been said many times by many people.
On the other hand when you have full blocks (it's not nearly the case right now) the first thing that happens with full 1MB blocks is not that the sky is falling but that the junk microtransactions and gambling is pushed off the chain btw. So really no need to worry at all about full blocks. Once it happens the sky is still not falling and everyone who sends with fees can still get fast confirms. Really all that propaganda here about urgency and 'sky is falling if we dont fork' is unbearable
How does it lower the minimum fee? Currently there is still quite some amount of space in blocks, but if you pay less than the minimum fee, then the likelihood of the transaction being confirmed rapidly decreases. |
|
|
|
Don't be so sure there will only be one coin when this fork is carried out.
This fork can and will be carried out in a way that there will only be one coin. Otherwise, bad shit will happen, Bitcoin will be devalued, and Gavin will have screwed up. This fork is only going to be carried out when almost the entire network, at least the miners, have switched to the new protocol. The switch will probably occur when 999 out of the last 1000 blocks mined conform to the new rules. Then the hard fork occurs when a block greater than 1 Mb is mined. Yes, bigger blocks means less fees, what else are the bigger blocks good for?
To allow large numbers of transactions to be confirmed in a timely manner. The blocksize increase is not to reduce fees, it is so that there aren't too many unconfirmed transactions so that confirmation times still stay reasonable. |
|
|
|
Wrong, nothing about 90% is mentioned anywhere. One fork stops being active when no one runs it.
Wrong. In order to fork the blockchain without seriously screwing everything up, the hard fork must occur when a super-majority of the blocks mined fit with the new version. This means that probably >95% of the last 1000 blocks mined must be the new version before the actual fork happens with the mining of a greater than 1MB block. It will happen similar to what happened with upgrading to block version 2, as described here: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0034.mediawiki except that it will be a hard fork instead of a soft fork. |
|
|
|
For the record, there will only be one coin, not two separate coins, because of the way that the hard fork will be carried out, if at all. Those who move coins around a lot indirectly choose the fork because the miners will mine the most profitable one, which has the most transactions.
Number of txs also doesn't matter. What matters is the price of the coins. How do the holders of the most Bitcoins effect the price? Also on core the txfees are secured for the miners while on Gavincoin they get less. Economical miners would definately go back to core if those coins are worth more.
What makes you say that the txfees for miners is less on the new fork than on the current blockchain? There is nothing changing in the fork except for the block size, which doesn't effect the transaction fees. |
|
|
|
I have two questions here...
i. Is it possible to know what % of nodes are running XT before the fork ?
Yes. Look on getaddr.bitnodes.io and you can see how many nodes are running XT. ii. Why you are saying two forks like soft fork & hard fork ? As I can see, there is only one fork, i.e. raising the limit to 20MB. What would be done after 50% reach and what would not be done before 90% reach ?
Gavin mentioned something about a soft-fork at a majority and the hard fork at the super-majority. However, I may have misunderstood that part of his email. The fork that actually matters is the hard fork when the super-majority of the nodes use the new version. It is at this point that any older nodes will no longer be on the main blockchain. |
|
|
|
Well, then I don't really see the problem. People decides. Decentralization still prevails. What does a soft fork scenario really means? [/quote] I believe it means that updated nodes will reject older version blocks and only accept the new version. Since the miners for the new version have a higher percentage of the mining power, the new version blocks will most likely be forming the longer chain. Since the new version blocks would still follow the old rules, nodes that did not update will still accept them. Once the super-majority accept the new blocks, then the hard fork will occur and any node that is not updated will be forked onto the old chain. |
|
|
|
I don't think there is an official date, but Gavin wants it to happen between 6 months and a year, so around Early 2016.
My question here: Will Gavin wait for Bitcoin XT nodes to be a solid majority before the hard fork so it doesn't generate controversy since it would mean the majority of node runners want the 20MB fork, or will he do the hard fork anyway out of nowhere? He will do it by first soft-forking when there is a majority (>50%) then hard-forking when there is a super-majority (>90%) of nodes using and accepting the new block version. |
|
|
|
Ultimately the outcome of the fork is determined by those holding the most coins because they can after the fork decide which fork to buy and which to sell. Miners will then mine the more profitable fork.
It's not really who holds the most, because I could hold tons of coins and not spend them, thus benefiting no one. Rather, it depends on the people who spend and transact the most. Those who move coins around a lot indirectly choose the fork because the miners will mine the most profitable one, which has the most transactions. Typically big companies and exchanges are the ones that have the most transactions, so they actually do determine which fork to use. Also, by your logic, the big companies and exchanges hold the most coins so they still choose which fork is used. Also, by your logic, satoshi would choose, but, as I said above, miners don't profit unless transactions are made, so actually wouldn't. |
|
|
|
What would this solve? When will we do once we reach 8MB limit? what wil we do once we reach 20MB limit? are we just buying time with this?
It is just buying time. Increasing the blocksize now is a solution that will buy enough time for people to come up with a better solution for this issue when it actually becomes a problem. You are missing one of Gavins most important points. I will automatically increase by almost 50% each year, to follow bandwidth. "Scaling up a little less than Nielsen's Law of Internet Bandwidth predicts for the next 20 years? (I think predictability is REALLY important)." I see that it will scale up every year by 50%. However, I don't think this is the final solution to the problem. I think that doing this is a solution that works, but it is not the best or final solution. So, while this solution is implemented, other people will work on new ways to solve the problem. |
|
|
|
What would this solve? When will we do once we reach 8MB limit? what wil we do once we reach 20MB limit? are we just buying time with this?
It is just buying time. Increasing the blocksize now is a solution that will buy enough time for people to come up with a better solution for this issue when it actually becomes a problem. |
|
|
|
|
I don't think there is an official date, but Gavin wants it to happen between 6 months and a year, so around Early 2016.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
